similar to: [LLVMdev] Stack switching, Active Objects and LLVM

Hello, I wish to have lots of little stacks and be able to switch rapidly between them. I could do CPS transformation but don't like the overhead of creating gc'able continuation thunks and the copying from stack to heap. I'd like to explore a no-copy approach by "merely" switching a few registers, perhaps as an equivalent of the C-- "jump" instruction (as opposed

Hi, I just found out that it's not practical to mark only some pointers for GC. Consider: %a = i8 addrspace(1)* malloc(...) %b = i8* alloca(...) The issue then becomes that routine functions declared: declare i1 foo(i8 addrspace(1)*) have a choice of accepting either gc'able or non-gc'able pointers. Is there no way to have a reasonable mix of both? Ram

WRT: Message-based concurrence, you might what to check-out the papers here: http://www.malhar.net/sriram/

Hi Nadav, Thanks for the response. I forgot to mention that there is an upper limit of 16 for the Trip Count check, TinyTripCountVectorThreshold = 16; if (TC > 0u && TC < TinyTripCountVectorThreshold). So right now, any loop with Trip Count as 0, or with value >=16, LV with unroll. With the change to the lower bound, it will also include the loop with 0 trip count. SCEV returns 0

Hi Sriram, Thanks for performing this analysis. The problem here, both for memcpy and the vectorizer, is that we can’t predict the size of “n”, even though the only use of ’n’ is for the loop bound for the alloca [4 x [8 x i32]]. If you change the unroll condition to TC >= 0 then you will disable loop unrolling for all loops because getSmallConstantTripCount returns an unsigned number. You

Wow, that sounds great! Thanks for working on this, and yes, please, send the patches! --renato On 30 April 2013 16:23, Murali, Sriram <sriram.murali at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel,**** > > I made some changes to the LNT perf reporting tool to make it more user > friendly by adding some features:**** > > **1. **Make the sidebar and the navigation bar stationary,

Hi Sriram, I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly: Do you need to generate code that contains no x87 floating-point instructions altogether, but uses calls into a soft-float library instead? That behaviour can be enabled using the "-soft-float" flag, as far as I know. Or is it only about the fcomi* instructions, which are not supported by pre-Pentium Pro chips? Then I

Sanjoy Das wrote: > In your > example, foo will have to treat its argument differently depending on > whether it is a GC pointer or not. In practice, this is not true of many functions that don't call other functions. Take the example of a simple "print" function that takes a void * to cast and print, type_int to determine what to cast to: why should it care about whether

Hi, I am trying to get a small loop to *not vectorize* for cases where it doesn't make sense. For instance, this loop: void foo(int a[4][8], int n) { int b[4][8]; for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < n; j++) { a[i][j] = b[i][j]; } } } * Has maximum of 8ints copy. LLVM tries to use Memcpy for the inner loop. It is not helpful to perform

Hi Daniel, I made some changes to the LNT perf reporting tool to make it more user friendly by adding some features: 1. Make the sidebar and the navigation bar stationary, so that it is easy to navigate the site 2. Have the pop-down menu for the items in the navigation bar, activate upon hovering the mouse, rather than clicking the item 3. Add a nav-link in the sidebar for the

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Murali, Sriram <sriram.murali at intel.com> wrote: > Our benchmark results show that the compilation time performance improved by > ~0.5%. That's fairly small; what was the standard deviation, confidence interval, etc? -- Sean Silva

Hey Arnold, I have run into this situation many times while benchmarking. I think it is best if this is addressed using a simple heuristic. For that, we need to identify the loop cost and decide if it makes sense to completely unroll the loop, or partially unroll. I am unsure of the optimal way to implement this though. I want to run it by the list to get any ideas floating around :) Thanks

Hi , I have a test case (and a micro benchmark made out of the test case) to check if loop unrolling and loop vectorization is efficiently done on LLVM. Here is the test case (credits: Tyler Nowicki) {code} extern float * array; extern int array_size; float g() { int i; float total = 0; for(i = 0; i < array_size; i++) { total += array[i]; } return total; } {code} When

Hello, This patch aims to improve compile time performance by increasing the SCEV vector size in LoopStrengthReduce. It is observed that the BaseRegs vector size is 4 in most cases, and elements are frequently copied when it is initialized as SmallVector<const SCEV *, 2> BaseRegs. Our benchmark results show that the compilation time performance improved by ~0.5%. Patch by Wan Xiaofei.

Hi I am using Trixbox 2.4 and PRI lines..on the CDR i see many calls that have duration of 0 seconds, but they are still shown as ANSWERED . how come its possible when duration is 0.00 ? Are the callers billed for such calls ? Rgds Sriram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I am trying to mount the ocfs partitions using the following command Mount -t ocfs -o uid=oracle,gid=dba /dev/sda /ocfs01 as user oracle and group dba. However it mounts the volume as root. But if I use the ocfstool for the first and mount it as oracle:dba, the subsequent mounts using the above command line mounts the volume as oracle:dba. Is there something that I am missing or I will have

Hello there, I recently started working on the LLVM backend for a target that doesn't support x87 instructions. Currently, I am in the process of completely disabling some x87 instructions such as fcomi, fcompi,... for a specific sub-target. I also do not have SSE enabled for my sub-target, and llvm resorts to fcomi* instructions for FP compare instructions. Is there a way to bypass the

Hi Is there any way to stop Asterisk from sending Caller ID display on the softphones ? I;ve E1 PRIs and SIP extensions , i need to stop caller ID from appearing on the softphones ...but in CDRs caller Ids should show - so please dont suggest to set "blockcallerid=yes" in zapata.conf ;) Thanks Sriram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Everybody I've a requirement for one of my operators for an autodialler for which i plan to deploy asterisk (I already have 3 asterisk servers on PRI running very well ! ). The scene is like : Asterisk will call a customer and play a prompt that prompts him to press 1 if he wishes to talk to an agent , If the customer presses 1 then the call gets connected to one of my proffessional agents

Hi Setup : Asterisk 1.6 on Fedora Core 9 with TE410P.. 1. I;ve noticed that whenever during "background(menu-filename)" method - i try to press any key for selection like 1 for some prompt, 2 for another prompt etc...Asterisk takes a while before it takes me to the respective option..Is that normal behaviour ? by the time the caller waits to listen to the appropriate prompt on selecting